UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PUBLICATIONS. 


COLLEGE  OF  AGRICULTURE. 


AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION. 


THE  SELECTION  OF  SEED- WHEAT 


By  G.  W.  SHAW. 


BULLETIN     No.     181. 

(Berkeley,  Cal.,  October,  1906.) 


SACRAMENTO: 
w.  w.   shannon,      :      :      :     SUPERINTENDENT  of  state  printing. 

1906. 


BENJAMIN  IDE  WHEELER,  Ph.D.,  1,1,. D.,  President  of  the  University. 

EXPERIMENT  STATION  STAFF. 

E.  J.  WICKSON,  M.A.,  Acting  Director  and  Horticulturist. 

E.  W.  HILGARD,  Ph.D.,  LL.D.,  Chemist. 

W.  A.  SETCHELL,  Ph.D.,  Botanist. 

ELWOOD  MEAD,  M.S.,  C.E-,  Irrigation  Engineer. 

C.  W.  WOODWORTH,  M.S.,  Entomologist.  [on  leave.) 

R.  H.  LOUGHRIDGE,  Ph.D.,  Agricultural  Geologist  and  Soil  Physicist.     {Soils  and  Alkali.)       (Absent 

M.  E.  JAFFA,  M.S.,  Chemist.     (Foods,  Nutrition.) 

G.  W.  SHAW,  M.A.,  Ph.D.,  Chemist.    (Cereals,  Oils,  Beet-Sugar.) 

GEORGE  E.  COLBY,  M.S.,  Chemist.     {Fruits,  Waters,  Insecticides.) 

RALPH  E.  SMITH,  B.S.,  Plant  Pathologist. 

A.  R.  WARD,  B.S.A.,  D.V.M.,  Veterinarian  and  Bacteriologist. 

E.  W.  MAJOR,  B.Agr.,  Animal  Industry. 

F.  T.  BIOLETTI,  M.S.,  Viticulturist.     (Grapes,  IVine,  and  Zymology.) 
H.  M.  HALL,  M.S.,  Assistant  Botanist. 

H.  J.  QUAYLE,  Assistant  Entomologist. 

JOHN  S.  BURD,  B.S.,  Chemist,  in  charge  of  Fertilizer  Control. 

C.  M.  HARING,  D.V.  M.,  Assistant  Veterinarian  and  Bacteriologist. 
ALBERT  M.  WEST,  B.S.,  Assistant  Plant  Pathologist. 

E.  H.  SMITH,  M.S.,  Assistant  Plant  Pathologist. 

G.  R.  STEWART,  Student  Assistant  in  Station  Laboratory. 
,  Assistant  in  Soil  Laboratory. 

RALPH  BENTON,  B.  S.,  Assistant  in  Entomology. 

LUDWIG  ROSENSTEIN,  Laboratory  Assistant  in  Fertilizer  Control. 

ALFRED  TOURNIER,  Assistant  in  Viticulture. 

( 

HANS  HOLM,  Student  Assistant  in  Zymology. 
A.  J.  GAUMITZ,  Assistant  in  Cereal  Laboratory. 
J.  C.  BRADLEY,  A.B.,  Assistant  in  Entomology. 

D.  L.  BUNNELL,  Clerk  to  the  Director. 


R.  E.  MANSELL,  Foreman  of  Central  Station  Grounds. 

JOHN  TUOHY,  Patron,     ) 

r   Tulare  Substation,  Tulare. 
J.  T.  BEARSS,  Foreman,    ) 

J.  W.  MILLS,  Pomona,  in  charge  Cooperative  Experiments  in  Southern  California. 

J.  W.  ROPER,  Patron,  ) 

V   University  Forestry  Station,  Chico. 


E-  C.  MILLER,  In  charge, 

ROY  JONES,  Patron, 

N.  D.  INGHAM,  Foreman, 

VINCENT  J.  HUNTLEY,  Foreman  of  Calif ornia  Poultry  Experiment  Station,  Petaluma. 


ROY  JONES,  Patron,  ) 

>    University  Forestry  Station,  Santa  Monica. 
N.  D.  INGHAM,  Foreman,  ) 


The  Station  publications  (Reports  and  Bulletins),  so  long  as  avail- 
able, will  be  sent  to  any  citizen  of  the  State  on  application. 


THE  SELECTION  OF  SEED-WHEAL 


By  G.  W.   SHAW. 


There  would  seem  to  be  little  necessity  of  discussing  the  importance 
of  good  seed,  yet  the  inquiries  made  of  the  Station  as  to  the  quantity 
of  inferior  seed  which  should  be  used  to  make  up  for  its  admitted 
deficiencies  is  evidence  that  there  still  exist  many  advocates  of  the  use 
of  such  seed.  And  again,  that  comparatively  little  attention  is  given 
to  this  matter  of  seed  selection  is  certainly  indicated  by  the  samples 
of  seed-wheat  which  have  been  collected  by  the  University.  Further, 
it  is  highly  prejudicial  to  the  highest  results  that  there  are  numerous 
erroneous  ideas,  held  very  tenaciously,  as  to  several  points  concern- 
ing seed- wheat.  There  is  little  doubt  that  much  of  the  present  condi- 
tion of  low  yield  is  due  to  the  lack  of  attention  to  the  rational  selection 
of  first-class  seed— the  best  of  seed  is  always  the  cheapest.  If  we  are 
to  grade  up  our  wheat  we  must  follow  the  same  practice  in  cereal 
culture  as  is  followed  by  the  stock-breeder  in  building  up  his  stock, 
using  only  the  best  types  for  purposes  of  reproduction. 

It  is  certain  that  one  of  the  greatest  factors  which  has  tended  to 
reduce  the  yield  of  wheat  in  California  is  the  egregious  blunder  of 
constantly  selecting  the  smallest  and  shrunken  grains  for  seed.  If 
there  is  one  thing  that  has  been  conclusively  demonstrated  by  the 
most  carefully  conducted  experiments,  it  has  been  the  superiority  of 
product,  in  both  quantity  and  quality,  obtained  from  the  selection 
of  large  and  vigorous  grains  for  seed.  Numerous  experiments,  con- 
ducted both  in  this  country  and  in  Australia,  not  only  with  wheat, 
but  also  with  corn  and  other  grains,  have  so  conclusively  demonstrated 
this  point  as  to  render  it  beyond  question. 

No  well-informed  breeder  to-day  would  deliberately  follow  the 
practice  of  selecting  as  his  parent  stock  the  poorest  animals  to  be 
found.  The  merest  tyro  knows  something  of  the  value  of  quality  in 
both  dam  and  sire  in  the  production  of  racing  stock,  yet,  notwith- 
standing our  plants  are  subject  to  essentially  the  same  laws  of  repro- 
duction and  development,  we  find  growers  continually  selecting  the 
poorest  of  parental  seed,  thus  gaining  a  constantly  degenerating 
product,  both  as  to  quantity  and  quality.  The  sole  idea  seems  to  be 
to  get  the  largest  number  of  plants  upon  an  acre  of  ground,  irrespec- 
tive of  the  fact  that  quality  of  grain  as  well  as  quantity  makes  for 
profit. 

This  matter  of  the  selection  of  high-quality  seed  is  so  important 
that  I  am  constrained  to  believe  that  the  lack  of  proper  attention  to 
it  has  had  more  than  any  other  one  thing  to  do  with  the  decreasing 


PLATE  I.    Typical  Heads  of  Common  California  Wheats. 

Nb.l.     California  Gem.  No.  2.     White  Australian.  No.  3.     Washington  Bluesterri. 

No.  4.     Little  Club.  No.  5.    Sonora. 


THE    SELECTION    OF    SEED-WHEAT. 


151 


iiiti  *  * » « 


*****  s  »  *  *  *  *  * 


wheat  production,  excepting  only  the  encroachment  of  other  crops. 
The  wonderful  increase  in  the  yields  of  corn  in  Illinois  and  Iowa  has 
been  largely  due  to  the  vigorous  campaign  on  the  part  of  the  Stations 
of  those  states  with  reference  to  the  selection  of  high-class  seed,  and 
I  am  inclined  to  believe  that  a  similar  campaign  with  reference  to 
the  selection  of  seed-wheat  in  California  would  yield  similar  results 
with  reference  to  this  crop,  and  would  do  more  than  any  other  one 
thing  toward  improving  the  yield  per  annum. 

Preliminary  to  other  investigations  along  the  line  of  cereal  improve- 
ment, this  bulletin  aims 
merely  to  present  certain 
ascertained  facts  with  ref- 
erence to  the  condition  of 
the  seed-wheat  commonly 
used  by  California  farm- 
ers, and  to  compare  the 
results  with  those  repre- 
senting really  first-class 
seed  of  the  respective  types. 
The  common  method  of 
grading  of  wheat  for  selec- 
tion of  seed  is  by  separa- 
tion of  the  grains  according 
to  size.  This  is  most  con- 
veniently done  by  means 
of  sieves.  The  grains  in  a 
given  sample  vary  in  size:  If  the  sample  fee  passed  through  a  sieve 
having  a  mesh  sufficiently  large  to  retain  only  the  very  largest  grains, 
and  then  successively  through  sieves  with  smaller  and  smaller  meshes, 
until  no  more  grains  will  pass  through,  the  sample  will  have  been 
graded— that  is,  each  lot  or  pile  of  wheat  will  consist  of  grains  of  a 
given  size. 

There  is  no  recognized  standard  to  represent  the  different  sizes  of 
grain,  but  certain  other  investigators,  especially  Dr.  N.  A.  Cobb,  of 
New  South  Wales,  after  considerable  study  of  the  range  of  variation 
in  the  grains  of  wheat,  adopted  the  following  meshes,  which  will  be 
retained  in  these  investigations,  inasmuch  as  it  will  then  permit  of 
certain  desirable  comparisons : 


lIlIlIiillllllillllililHIilillUIIIlll 
liii  iffff        M i 11 1 II ft II 1  III 

kill  :  I  I  I  I  I  I  I:  I  1  fl  J  f  ill 

S  #      1  M  ■    .    '   i  ?  1  I  I  I  I  I  i  -1  1  I  S 

U  i  1  I  1  1  I  I  1  1  1    ■ 

■  j  lliilllll! 

1 1 1 1 1 1  > 

J     ..     (     -     ..  >  I     i    ■     I    I    I     I    I    I     I    I    I    .8    I 


PLATE  II.    Showing  the  character  of  sieves  employed  m 
making  separations  of  wheat. 


Size. 
Me^h  diam, 


3.25  mm.     3.00  mm. 


3  4  5 

2.75  mm.     2.50  mm.     2.25  mm. 


2.00  mm, 


7 
Trash. 


The  character  of  the  mesh  has  much  to  do  with  a  proper  grading 
by  this  method.  The  shape  of  the  wheat-grain  is  such  that  a  slit  is 
required  for  the  openings  in  the  sieves  in  order  to  allow  the  passage 
of  the   grain.     An   examination   of  the  wheat-grains  will   show  that 


152 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA— EXPERIMENT    STATION. 


the  two  transverse  diameters  are  not  of  the  same  size,  and  this  must 
be  regarded  as  having  reference  to  the  shortest  diameter  in  each  case. 
This  difference  in  transverse  diameter  of  grains  is  easily  observed  in 
Plate  III,  which  is  primarily  intended  to  represent  the  actual  size  of  the 
grains  separated  by  each  sieve.    Unfortunately  it  is  impossible  to  show  in 


3.25  mm. 


3.00  mm. 


2.75  mm. 


2.50  mm. 


2.25  mm. 


2.00  mm. 


No.l.  No.  2.  No.  3.  No.  4.  No.  5.  No.  6. 

PLATE  III.    Showing  actual  size  of  grain  separated  by  each  sieve.    The  diameter  of  grain  in  each 
size  is  shown  in  millimeters  by  the  figures  at  the  top. 

this  picture  the  real  character  of  certain  of  the  samples,  because  many 
contained  a  large  proportion  of  shriveled  ("pinched")  grains.  Such 
pinched  grains  have  an  outline  which  is  large  in  proportion  to  the 
actual  weight  of  the  grain,  consequently  such  grains  appear  of  undue 
size  in  the  illustration.  This  undue  proportion  of  size  to  weight  will 
perhaps  be  the  more  clearly  understood  by  referring  to  Plate  IV. 


i. 

PLATE  IV. 


2.  <3.  4. 

Showing  four  conditions  of  wheat  grain.    1.  Plump.    2.  Slightly  pinched. 
3.  Pinched.    4.  Badly  pinched.    Enlarged  three  diameters. 


Different  varieties  of  wheat  will  grade  differently ;  hence,  in  making 
a  comparison  as  to  the  quality  of  seed,  as  measured  by  the  grad- 
ing, it  is  necessary  to  compare  the  samples  of  a  given  variety  with  a 
standard  of  the  same  variety  only.  This  will  be  apparent  by  com- 
paring grades  obtained  from  typical  samples  of  the  common  California 
wheats.  (See  Plate  V.)  The  actual  size  of  the  grains  represented  in 
these  piles  may  be  seen  in  Plate  III. 

Table  Showing  Grading  of  Good  Samples  of  Common  California  Wheats. 


Grades. 


3.25  mm. 


3.00  mm. 


2.75  mm. 


2.50mm. 


5 
2.25  mm 


2.00mm, 


7 
Trash. 


Weight 

Per 
Bushel. 


Australian,  No.  420 

Club,  No.  130 

Sonora,  No.  167 

Bluestem,  No.  64... 


Per  cent. 
28.61 
3.90 
21.64 
43.66 


Per  cent. 
18.49 
13.00 
14.22 
22.29 


Per  cent. 
28.74 
24.20 
16.80 
20.95 


Per  cent. 
19.62 
50.80 
38.54 
10.71 


Per  cent. 

1.83 

4.10 

3.32 

.91 


Per  cent 

1.93 

1.00 

4.42 

.62 


Per 


Cf7lt 

.75 
2.60 
1.06 

.83 


lbs. 
60.5 
60.0 


61.0 


THE    SELECTION    OF    SEED-WHEAT. 


153 


These  figures  are  the  re- 
sults obtained  by  separating 
the  several  sizes  of  grains  by 
means  of  the  set  of  sieves 
described  in  this  bulletin,  the 
samples  used  having  been 
very  carefully  selected  as 
representing  a  very  perfect 
typical  lot  of  the  variety  in- 
dicated in  each  case.  The 
figures  show  that  a  really 
good  White  Australian  wheat 
gives  a  grading  much  differ- 
ent from  one  of  Salt  Lake 
Club  on  the  one  hand,  and 
from  Sonora  on  the  other.  In 
the  former  variety  we  should 
expect  from  70  to  75  per  cent 
of  the  berries  to  fall  within 
the  first  three  sizes,  while  in 
the  Club  not  more  than  from 
40  to  50  per  cent  would  be  in- 
cluded within  these  sizes,  the 
bulk  of  the  grain  normally 
falling  within  the  intermedi- 
ate grades.  This  tells  us 
nothing,  however,  as  to  the 
real  shape  of  the  kernels,  but 
only  refers  to  the  relative 
length  of  the  minor  transverse 
axis. 

The  greater  distribution  of 
the  sizes  seems  to  be  at  least 
partly  dependent  upon  the 
compactness  of  the  head ;  that 
is,  other  things  being  equal, 
the  shorter  and  more  compact 
the  head  the  greater  will  be 
the  number  of  grains  which 
will  fall  within  one  size.  For 
instance,  it  will  be  seen  that 
in  even  the  standard  Club  by 
far    the    larger    number    of 


o 
(3 

c 

02 


X 


< 


s-2 
s  ■=- 
o  o 

°  £ 

fa  s 
o  S 


6- 

S    « 

>  * 

X 

o 


CO 

Q  C 

£  O 

<  +* 

be 

fa  c 

«  fl 


2   o 
&  & 

05 

o 
fa 

o 

o 


o 

02     S 
>'l 

3U   *» 


o 
55 


154 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA  — EXPERIMENT    STATION. 


grains  are  in  the  2.50  mm.  grade,  while  in  White  Australian  the  bulk  of 
the  grains  is  quite  well  distributed  over  three'  sizes,  and  this  can  be 
said  of  Bluestem  as  well.  Contrasting  the  two  types  of  head  it  will 
be  seen  that  the  Salt  Lake  (Little)  Club  is  a  much  shorter  and  more 
compact  head,  and  the  grading  shows  also  that  the  grains  are  more 
nearly  of  the  same  size.     (See  Plate  I.) 

It  is  not  alone  in  the  matter  of  seed  that  this  matter  of  the  relative 
number  of  large  and  small  grains  in  the  varieties  is  important,  but  it 
also  has  a  bearing  upon  the  milling  value,  other  things  being  equal. 
For  instance,  of  two  wheats  otherwise  of  equal  value  for  milling,  the 
one  whose  grains  are  the  larger  will  give  the  larger  yield  of  flour. 
Millers  pretty  generally  recognize  this  by  screening  out  the  smallest 
grains.  This  may  also  be  shown  by  certain  results  obtained  with  the 
mill  at  this  laboratory.  Further,  we  might  expect  this  a  priori, 
because  there  is  bound  to  be  a  larger  percentage  of  bran  upon  the 
smaller  grains. 

The  samples  collected  for  examination  were  obtained  over  a  wide 
area  in  the  Sacramento  and  San  Joaquin  valleys,  the  two  great  wheat- 
growing  sections  of  the  State,  and  probably  fairly  represent  the 
general  character  of  the  seed  being  used  by  the  farmers  of  the  State. 
The  separations  made  are  set  forth  below  in  tabular  form,  and  when 
examined  show  a  number  of  things  of  interest  bearing  upon  the  matter 
of  the  character  of  seed-wheat  being  used  by  the  farmers  of  the  State. 

Grading  of  White  Australian  Seed- Wheat.    (Collected  1904.) 


No. 


Locality 


3.25  rum 


3.00  mm 


2.75  mm 


2.50  mm 


2.25  mm 


6 
2.00  mm. I  Trash. 


Weight 

per 
Bushel. 


22 

23 

26 

28 

66 

67 

68 

62 

69 

73 

78 

77 

127 

129 

134 

138 

141 


Stanislaus ____ 

do  .---..: 

do    

do 

Sonoma. / 

Fresno 

do   ...;: 

San  Joaquin    

Fresno 

do    ..... 

Merced 

do    

Stanislaus ... 

Merced 

Kern . ... 

Fresno-....  ..... 

Yuba 

Average 


Per  cent. 

1.17 

4.85 

4.30 

6.80 

21.67 

21.10 

6.85 

3.20 

.50 

10.30 

.00 

.00 

5.70 

1.80 

.70 

.60 

3.60 


5.48 


Per  rent. 

6.96 

12.00 

19.20 

11.55 

15.83 

9,80 

10. 6Q 

7.40 

3.55 

13.40 

1.50 

1.50 

16.30 

5.20 

2.10 

6.20 

10.90 


Per  cent, 
29.92 
31.45 
41.20 
23.30 

■  26.49 
15.50 
26.90 
22.20 
12.30 
19.40 
9.10 
10.20 
40.20 
26.00 
19.00 
21.10 
62.30 


Percent 
39.10 
42.35 
31.90 
48.40 
30.26 
27.65 
48.45 
60.00 
66.40 
38.20 
64.00 
60.50 
32.00 
60.40 
63.30 
55.60 
16.10 


9.05  '     25.68        46.15 


Per  cent. 

13.18 
3.15 
1.30 
6.55 
2.63 
3.60 
3.70 
5.20 

13.90 
3.70 

13.40 

21.90 
1.50 
3.40 
8.60 

12.30 
2.70 


Per  cent. 
5.43 
1.30 

.80 
1.80 

.53 
2.45 
1.20 

.50 
1 
1 
1 


80 
70 
70 
.40 
1.30 
1.00 
2.20 
1.20 
1.40 


Percent. 

4.24 

4.20 

.50 

1.60 

2.60 

19.95 

2.45 

1.50 

1.55 

13.20 

10.20 

2.30 

3.00 

2.30 

4.00 

3.10 

3.60 


lbs. 
58.5 
59.0 
60.0 
58.5 
58.0 
56.0 
58.5 
56.5 
58.0 
58.0 
52.5 
56.0 
61.8 
63.5 
61.5 


7.10 


1.52 


4.70 


58.4 


THE    SELECTION    OF    SEED- WHEAT. 


155 


Grading  of 

White  Australian  Seed-Wheat.     (Collected 

1905.) 

No. 

Locality. 

l      ' 
3.25  mm. 

2 
3.00  mm. 

3 
2.75  mm. 

4 

2.50  mm. 

5 
2.25  mm. 

6 
2.oo  mm 

7 
Trash. 

Weight 

per 
Bushel. 

359 
366 

Merced    

Fresno 

Percent. 

.00 

.41 

10.83 

2.30 

7.06 

4.22 

.00 

4.02 

27.17 

5.80 

28.61 

8.22 

Percent. 
.00 
2.04 

14.92 
2.04 
5.57 
6.27 
1.48 
5.07 

16.37 
5.32 

18.49 

7.05 

Percent. 
.90 

3.85 
32.36 

6.07 
21.06 
19.73 

6.64 
19.71 
26.34 
18.67 
28.74 

Per  cent. 
49.12 
45.67 
38.14 
51.41 
54.83 
57.98 
66.26 
6330 
29.27 
61.49 
19.62 

Percent 

40.22 

36.24 

2.31 

25.11 

7.55 

7.69 

20. 1 7 

6.21 

.48 

5.24 

1.83 

Percent. 

6.02 

9.15 

1.01 

8.68 

1.38 

1.77 

3.56 

.HI 

.04 

.12 

1.93 

3.14 

/''  /•  cent. 
3.79 
2.66 

.51 
4.39 
2.54 
2.33 

.51 
1.80 

.60 
3.38 

.75 

lbs. 

58.0 
.54.5 

368 
369 

San  Joaquin 

do    

63.2 
53.0 

370 

do    

56.5 

373 
375 
398 
416 
417 
420 

Butte 

do    ._..  

Stanislaus 

Sacramento 

do 

Butte 

Average..  

58.5 
54.5 
57.2 
58.5 
57.5 
60.5 

16.73 

48.83 

13.91 

1.12 

56.9 

Grading  of  Salt  Lake  Club   Seed-Wheat.     (Collected  1904.) 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

0 

7 

Weight 

No. 

Locality. 

per 

3.25  mm. 

3.00  mm. 

2.75  mm. 

2.50  mm. 

2.2omm. 

2.00  mm. 

Trash. 

Bushel. 

Per  cent. 

Per  cent. 

Per  cent. 

Per  cent. 

Percent. 

Per  cent 

Per  cent. 

lbs. 

12 

Yuba.    -  . 

5.30 

7.75 

20.10 

57.35 

6.20 

1.65 

1.65 

58.5 

18 

Stanislaus..  ... 

4.50 

7.05 

18.80 

50.90 

12.25 

2.25 

3.90 

57.5 

27 

do 

1.45 

2.10 

11.95 

70.40 

11.20 

2.20 

.60 

58.0 

34 

Madera  . 

.00 
.15 

1.65 
1.30 

12.70 
12.90 

67.80 

69.80 

11.55 
10.35 

3.40 
2.30 

1.10 
3.30 

5S.5 

37 

do 

56.0 

39 

do  . .   .  .    

.00 

.25 

2.45 

56.55 

27.20 

4.75 

8.70 

53.5 

49 

Glenn  - 

.30 

2.90 

9.20 

59.20 

13.70 

3.70 

10.90 

54.0 

50 

do 

'    2.90 

3.00 

11.10 

60.80 

10.80 

3.80 

7.90 

58.5 

51 

do 

3.55 

8.40 

19.05 

59.20 

5.55 

1.30 

3.45 

58.5 

52 

do 

.20 

1.90 

4.75 

40.25 

27.20 

7.90 

12.80 

57.0 

53 

do 

1.45 

3.30 

15.10 

67.30 

•7.55 

1,30 

4.10 

58.0 

54 

do 

.90 

2.20 

14.80 

56.80 

14.00 

3.36 

11.40 

59.0 

55 

do 

1.31 

4.45 

14.38 

52.42 

15.00 

3.64 

8.91 

56.5 

56 

do 

.15 

1.20 

6.65 

66.30 

18.15 

2.90 

4.70 

57.0 

57 

do 

.00 

.65 

6.85 

61.60 

10.45 

2.60 

17.45 

55.0 

58 

do 

.25 

2.30 

10.25 

6.67 

8.45 

3.05 

7.80 

55.5 

59 

do 

.50 

3.90 

17.10 

55.80 

7.60 

4.60 

10.20 

57.0 

60 

do 

.40 

1.30 

8.10 

55.40 

19.80 

4.20 

10.60 

56.0 

128 

Stanislaus 

2.60 

8.00 

19.10 

56.50 

7.30 

1.40 

4.30 

62.0 

124 

do    

1.20 

11.40 

31.40 

49.20 

4.30 

.70 

1.60 

62.0 

131 

Merced 

.00 

4.30 

7.30 

57.80 

14.80 

4.60 

4.50 

62.0 

138 

do 

.00 

1.50 

11.00 

57.90 

19.40 

3.30 

0.40 

60.5 

136 

.00 

3.40 

8.10 

60.(50 

19.40 

4.20 

4.10 

63.5 

139 

Colusa  -. .- 

.50 

4.05 

20.30 

66.00 

6.60. 

.85 

2.10 

143 

Yolo 

3.80 

8.80 

28.90 

45.10 

6.60 

2.80 

3.90 

144 

do 

2.88 

8.00 

19.60 

59.20 

5.80 

1.40 

3.00 

60.0 

155 

Stanislaus  ...    .. 

3.60 

6.98 

18.48 

54.16 

11.38 

2.78 

2.62 

60.0 

158 

do  - 

4.96 

6.20 

14.68 

55.90 

11.86 

3.78 

2.62 

59.0 

160 

do 

3.14 

4.88 

15.76 

61.36 

11.24  j 

2.40 

1.22 

60'.0 

161 

do 

7.80 
.00 

10.28 

.50  j 

19.12 
5.30 

47.48 
70.40 

9.28 
19.50  ; 

3.46  ! 
1.90 

2.58 
2.50 

62.0 

130 

Merced ..     . 

60.0 

130 

do 

Average 

3.90 

13.00 

24.20 

50.80 

4.10 

1.00 

1 

2.60 

60.0 

1.85 

4.59 

14.36 

56.43 

12.11 

2.93 

5.42 

58.3 

156 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA— EXPERIMENT    STATION. 


Grading  of  Salt  Lake  Club   Seed-Wheat.     (Collected  1905.) 


No. 

Locality. 

l 
3.25mm. 

2 
3.00  mm. 

3 
2.75  mm. 

4 
2.50  mm. 

5 
2.25  mm. 

6 
2.00mm. 

7 
Trash. 

Weight 

per 
Bushel. 

360 
363 

Merced - 

Fresno 

Per  cent. 
.00 
.00 
.00 

4.20 
.00 
.00 
.00 
.00 

3.74 
.00 

Per  cent. 
.00 

4.96 
.00 

6.94 
.46 
.00 
.00 
.42 

4.96 
.00 

Per  cent. 

2.51 

3.20 

.85 

18.29 

1.55 

2.53 

.49 

1.02 

16.52 

1.62 

Per  cent. 
24.24 
36.74 
11.34 
58.18 
34.56 
44.59 
18.12 
15.30 
58.77 
40.32 

Per  cent. 
39.10 
34.57 
33.50 
8.66 
45.43 
38.05 
43.06 
36.23 
11.10 
41.53 

Per  cent. 
23.22 
14.25 
32.13 

1.42 
13.71 
10.94 
23.81 
31.43 

1.96 
11.74 

Per  cent. 

11.02 
6.48 

22.16 
2.33 
5.69 
3.77 

14.53 

15.97 
2.91 
4.76 

lbs. 
45.5 
51.0 

367 

do    

44.5 

372 
374 

San  Joaquin 

Butte  

61.0 
59.0 

376 

do    

56.0 

377 

do _- 

48.0 

380 

Merced 

48.0 

418 
4?1 

Sacramento 

Butte 

55.5 
56.0 

Average. 

.79 

1.77 

4.86 

34.22 

33.13 

16.50 

8.96 

52.5 

Grading  of  Bluestem  Seed-Wheat.     (Collected  1904  and  1905.) 


No. 

Locality. 

l 
3.25  mm. 

2 
3.00  mm. 

3 
2.75  mm. 

4 
2.50  mm. 

5 
2.25  mm. 

6 
2.00  mm. 

7 
Trash. 

Weight 

per 
Bushel. 

15 
16 

Sutter 

do    

Per  cent. 

17.80 

15.95 
8.25 
1.25 
2.12 
7.20 
3.40 

43.66 
3.40 

15.40 
.00 

Percent. 

12.75 

15.10 

17.10 

2.85 

1.32 

23.00 

12.05 

22.29 

6.60 

14.80 

.00 

Per  cent. 
26.05 
24.00 
45.10 
10.65 
11.30 
44.85 
38.30 
20.95 
19.00 
23.20 
3.20 

Per  cent 
36.45 
38.40 
24.50 
53.60 
54.94 
20.00 
43.30 
10.71 
53.40 
36.90 
65.60 

Percent. 

3.00 

2.70 

1.35 

22.40 

22.58 

1.50 

1.10 

.91 

9.80 

4.70 

24.80 

Per  cent. 

1.75 

1.55 

1.45 

4.20 

5.38 

.30 

.80 

.62 

4.30  \ 

1.50 

3.00 

Per  cent 
3.00 
1.90 
1.75 
3.00 
2.38 
2.00 
.70 
.83 
3.70 
3.30 
2.40 

lbs. 
59.5 
60.0 

17 
19 

Stanislaus 

do    

58.0 
58.0 

21 

do    

59.0 

24 
25 

do    

do    

59.0 
60.0 

64 

Sonoma.  

61.0 

65 
121 
132 

do    

San  Joaquin 

Merced. 

6~2~6 

60.0 

Average ..- 

10.76 

11.62 

24.24 

39.80 

8.62 

2.26 

2.26 

59.6 

Grading  of  Sonora  Seed- Wheat — 1904  and  1905. 


Locality. 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

3.25  mm. 

3.00  mm. 

2.75  mm. 

2.50mm. 

2.25  mm. 

2.00mm. 

Trash. 

Percent. 

Per  cent. 

Percent. 

Percent. 

Percent. 

Percent. 

Percent. 

.50 

1.60 

7.25 

62.00 

14.25 

2.30 

11.99 

.00 

.10 

4.58 

78.92 

11.92 

1.68 

1.80 

.00 

.00 

13.00 

57.20 

25.40 

2.90 

2.40 

.00 

1.90 

11.30 

77.00 

8.40 

.40 

.50 

.00 

.00 

.10 

57.30 

32.90 

5.20 

4.30 

.00 

1.10 

9.30 

77.30 

11.30 

1.70 

.50 

.00 

.00 

.50 

40.30 

43.80 

5.60 

.61 

.00 

.00 

.00 

37.70 

54.50 

3.80 

4.00 

13.65 

9.29 

22.21 

47.32 

3.42 

3.38 

.73 

5.00 

6.25 

52.76 

5-'.04 

9.08 

3.28 

2.04 

1.92 

2.01 

12.10 

58.71 

21.50 

3.02 

2.89 

Weight 

per 
Bushel. 


Madera 

do 

San  Joaquin 
Fresno 

do  ._:.... 

do  

Tulare 

do 

Kings  . 

Fresno 

Average.  . 


lbs. 
58.5 
64.0 
64.0 
65.0 
62.0 
73.0 
63.0 
61.5 

6L5 


63.9 


THE    SELECTION    OF    SEED-WHEAT. 


157 


Grading  of  Miscellaneous  Seed-Wheat  Samples — 1905-1906. 


No. 

Locality. 

l 

3.25mm. 

2 

3.00  mm. 

3 
2.75mm. 

4 
2.50  mm. 

5 
2.25  mm. 

6 
2.00  mm. 

7 
Trash. 

Weight 

per 
Bushel. 

361 

Merced 

Percent. 

.72 

.00 

16.32 

7.15 

.00 

.00 

7.54 

.00 

16.96 

2.71 

5.49 

.78 

1.28 

7.57 

12.04 

.00 

18.72 

8.83 

24.03 

.00 

22.29 

.00 

3.87 

.00 

.00 

8.86 

Percent. 

1.42 

.86 

14.85 

14.20 

.00 

.00 

8.13 

.76 

15.63 

5.22 

6.27 

2.22 

1.44 

13.37 

14.70 

3.98 

10.97 

6.50 

16.77 

.89 

13.13 

.00 

7.27 

.00 

.00 

10.86 

Percent. 

4.55 

1.71 

26.77 

25.26 

.00 

.00 

20.31 

4.38 
26.24 
16.56 
19.63 
10.12 
11*05 
29.02 
32.13 

2.41 
11.94 
13.64 
25.52 

6.79 
21.82 

1.16 
26.11 

1.70 

1.15 
23.54 

Per  cent. 
40.51 
40.80 
40.48 
47.56 
39.84 
45.97 
54.34 
49.73 
29.78 
60.21 
56.77 
73.53 
67.39 
44.95 
38.32 
72.11 
37.21 
47.90 
31.03 
57.90 
37.38 
52.05 
55.50 
53.75 
38.43 
49.42 

Per  cent. 
29.26 
38.27 

1.46 

3.01 
51.45 
45.95 

6.44 
29.42 

7.02 
10.74 

5.63 
10.82 
13.78 

3.91 

1.74 
18.43 
14.16 
17.83 

1.11 
24.46 

4.37 
36.77 

5.38 
34.79 
40.31 

4.58 

Per  cent. 
13.41 
14.18 

.00 

.31 
6.72 
5.56 
1.06 

.05 
3.22 
2.18 

.22 
1.35 
2.58 

.79 

.40 
2.11 
3.22 
2.91 

.23 
6.50 

.77 
7.09 

.91 

6.97 

10.25 

1.42 

Percent. 
10.26 
4.14 

.19 
2.51 
1.98 
2.55 
2.28 
15.70 
1.18 
2.38 
6.01 
1.07 
2.49 

.46 

.71 
1.08 
3.81 
2.46 
1.28 
3.48 

.25 
2.99 

.92 
1.75 
9.86 
1.41 

lbs. 
47.5 

362 
419 
414 

do 

Sacramento 

do 

52.2 
57.5 
60.5 

364 
365 
415 
397 

Fresno _ 

do  

Sacramento 

Tehama.  

49.3 
50.0 
59.5 
52.5 

396 
395 

do            

do -. 

58.0 
58.0 

394 

do 

56.5 

393 
392 
353 

do 

San  Joaquin 

do 

58.5 
56.0 

353 

do 

63.5 

351 

do .--. 

57.0 

350 

do  . 

58.5 

349 

do . 

58.5 

348 

do 

64.0 

374 

do    

62.0 

378 
358 
357 

Butte 

do  

do  

57.0 
57.0 
60.5 

354 

356 

do 

do - 

56.5 
53.0 

355 

do 

56.0 

Average — 

6.35 

6.51 

13.90 

48.50 

17.70 

3.63 

3.20 

56.7 

Collecting,  for  the  sake  of  comparison,  the  averages  for  the  two 
seasons  and  arranging  them  against  the  standard  and  the  poorest 
sample  of  the  respective  types,  we  will  have  a  striking  representation 
of  the  general  physical  character  of  the  seed- wheat,  as  based  upon  its 
grading,  which  our  farmers  are  using. 


Table  Showing  Comparative  Grading  of  Standard,  Average  and  Poorest  Samples 

of  Wheat  Used  for  Seed-Wheat — 1904-1906. 


1 

2 

■      3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

3.25  mm. 

3.00  mm. 

2.75  mm. 

2.50  mm. 

2.25  mm. 

2.00  mm. 

Trash. 

Per  cent. 

Per  cent. 

Per  cent. 

Per  cent. 

Per  cent. 

Per  cent. 

Per  cent. 

3.90 

13.00 

24.20 

50.80 

4.10 

1.00 

2.60 

1.66 

3.92 

12.09 

51.17 

17.14 

6.13 

6.26 

.00 

.00 

.85 

11.34 

33.50 

32.13 

22.16 

28.61 

18.49 

28.74 

19.62 

1.83 

1.93 

.75 

6.56 

8.23 

22.16 

47.20 

9.74 

2.19 

3.84 

.00 

.00 

.90 

49.12 

40.22 

6.02 

3.79 

43.66 

22.29 

20.95 

10.71 

.91 

.62 

.83 

9.45 

10.19 

21.82 

38.71 

7.93 

2.01 

1.99 

.00 

.00 

.00 

7.15 

59.21 

22.98 

10.70 

Weight 

per 
Bushe  . 


Salt  Lake  Club. 

Standard  (130) ..... 

Average  (2  years) 

Poorest  (367)         

White  Australian. 

Standard  (420) 

Average  (2  years) 

Poorest  (359) 

Bluestem,. 

Standard  (64) 

Average  (2  years) 

Poorest  (379) 


lbs. 
60.0 
57.0 
44.5 


60.5 

57.7 
53.0 


61.0 

58.5 
46.2 


158 


UNIVERSITY    OP    CALIFORNIA  — EXPERIMENT    STATION. 


H 


o 

a 

s3 

co 

cp 

A 

H 

'"/^ 

a 

cp 

o 

be 

o 

o3 

cn 

Fh 

cp 

> 

oS 

aj 
CP 

& 
aj 
c/j 

a; 


CP 

be 
aj 


a3 


T3 
cp 


Tl 


Tr 

u 

S-. 

33 

P< 

3 

z 

o 

a! 

33 

y — v 

CO 

~- 

H 

iO 

." 

eo 

£ 

^■^ 

!-. 

rr 

bf. 

53 

«*H 

53 

O 

o 

0) 

MH 

X 

0) 

CO 

& 

~ 

5 

"~* 

03 

co 

CO 

73 

ai 

cp 

'<-* 

SH 

tlj 

O 

^-^ 

o 

~ 

A 

~i 

-p 

cp 

» — / 

£ 

+3 

4J 

Bj 

93 

■d 

53 

& 

ci 

H 

DO 

(H 

5 

S3 

m 

■u 

CO 

53 

^ 

0) 

+i 

H 

> 

'ft 

k;fe 


aj   t- 

fcJ    CO 

be  w 
«->  73 

o  c 
cp    53 

N      O 
CO       fj 

be  uj 

^.    ^c 
rt<    o 

tO     O 

d  <p 

a>  ^3 

.a  *» 

*  -a 

a  § 


CP 

pq 

o 

o 

w 

be 

d 


OJ 

CP 

5» 

O 


o 

CP 

P. 

a 


o 

o 
be 


c 
be 


O 

CO 


a 
a 


-d 
o 

c 
be 

o 

r] 
be 


o 

CO 


> 

a. 


THE    SELECTION    OF    SEED-WHEAT. 


159 


From  the  standpoint  of  practical  work  it  may  be  argued  that  it  is 
impossible  to  secure  as  high  a  grade  as  here  represented  by  the 
standard,  but  it  is  certainly  fair  to  assume  that  all  can  easily  secure 
a  seed  which  will  grade  as  high  as  the  average  used  by  25  per  cent 
of  the  growers  here  represented.  If  we  again  select  White  Australian  for 
our  consideration  and  take  the  grade  represented  by  the  best  25  per 
cent  of  the  samples,  we  have  as  follows : 


i 

8.25  mm. 


2 
3.00  mm 


3 
2.75  mm, 


4 
2.50  mm 


2.25  mm. 


6 
2.00  mm. 


7 
Trash. 


Weight 

per 
Bushel. 


Average  of  25' 

samples 

Average 


of  best 


Per  cent. 
17.58 
6.56 


Per  cent.lPer  cent 
14.24        30.31 
8.23       22.16 


Per  cent, 
28.46 
47.20 


Per  cent. 
2.46 
9.74 


Per  cent. 
1.29 
2.19 


Per  cent. 
5.89 
3.84 


lbs. 
58  2 
57.7 


From  this  it  may  be  seen  that  there  is  room  for  much  improvement 
in  the  grade  of  our  wheat,  even  though  no  higher  standard  be  taken 
than  that  used  by  one  fourth  of  the  growers  here  represented ;  and  if 
we  should  exclude  from  the  average  the  best  one  fourth  the  difference 
would  be  still  more  striking,  although  this  falls  far  short  of  the 
standard  of  a  typical  sample  of  this  same  variety,  as  may  be  seen 
below : 


l 
3.25  mm. 

2 
3.00  mm. 

3 
2.75mm. 

4 
2.50  mm. 

5 
2.25  mm. 

6 
2.00  mm. 

7 
Trash. 

Weight 

per 
Bushel. 

Standard  

Average  of  25%  of  best 
samples 

Per  cent. 
28.61 

17.58 

Per  cent. 
18.49 

14.24 

Per  cent. 

28.74 

30.31 

Per  cent. 
19.62 

28.46 

Per  cent. 
1.83 

2.46 

Per  cent. 
1.93 

1.29 

Per  cent. 
.75 

5.89 

lbs. 
60.5 

58.2 

Special  attention  is  called  to  the  contrast  between  the  grading  of 
the  25  per  cent  of  the  best  samples  and  the  average  for  the  variety, 
because  it  is  a  standard  entirely  possible  for  the  wheat-growers  to 
reach,  and  there  is  little  doubt  that  the  wheat  crops  would  be  much 
improved  by  such  seed,  and  it  is  a  plan  that  could  be  put  into  immediate 
operation.  It  is  the  worst  kind  of  folly  to  continue  to  plant  small,  light 
seed  when  it  is  so  easy  to  secure  seed  of  good,  if  not  of  the  very  best, 
quality.  No  grower,  however,  should  be  satisfied  with  anything  short 
of  the  best  for  seed,  and  by  so  much  as  he  lowers  his  standard  in  this 
respect  does  he  multiply  his  chances  of  failure.  This  is  the  more 
important  since  the  climatic  conditions  which  obtain  in  the  wheat- 
growing  sections  of  the  State  are  decidedly  fickle,  particularly  as  to 
moisture  and  those  conditions  which  lead  to  rust  attacks.  We  should 
take  every  precaution  to  secure  the  best  of  seed— large,  plump,  and 
vigorous— but   should   remember   that   by   far   the   better   results    can 


160 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA— EXPERIMENT    STATION. 


CM 


w, 


us 


■ 


■•  " 


3 


be 
03 
s- 
0/ 
> 
o3 


73 
0/ 


03 


to   o> 


N      03 

.-.     CO 


.3     <« 

co     o 


be  £ 


.a 

53 


O 


P. 

S 

03 

CO 

•O 
O 
O 

CJD 


O 

bo 


O 

w 


Oh 


be  obtained  if  we  are  also  certain 
that  the  seed  has  come  by  selection 
from  strong  and  vigorous  plants. 
In  connection  herewith  it 
should  be  stated  that  the  highest 
results  can  only  be  obtained  when 
the  seed  is  selected  from  pro- 
ductive individual  plants,  and 
that  under  favorable  conditions 
even  small  perfect  seeds  from 
productive  plants  may  be  better 
than  large  seeds  from  unproduc- 
tive plants.  The  main  influence 
of  large  grains  selected  by  simple 
sieve  grading  will  be  in  giving  the 
plants  a  more  vigorous  start  in 
life,  which  of  itself  is  of  extreme 
importance.  Other  things  being 
equal,  it  is  entirely  fair  to  pre- 
sume that  the  crops  which  are 
placed  under  the  most  favorable 
environment  are  going  to  give  the 
best  returns.  It  has  been  shown 
that,  in  general,  the  more  vigor- 
ous plants  (that  is,  those  having 
the  largest  spikelets)  contain  the 
larger  grains,  so  that  even  in 
selecting  the  grains  by  simple 
sieve  separation  the  bulk  of  the 
larger  grains  would  come  from 
the  more  vigorous  plants,  and 
thus  there  would  be,  in  a  measure 
at  least,  a  selection  from  vigorous 
plants. 

A  brief  summary  of  the  work 
done  at  various  experiment  sta- 
tions touching  upon  this  matter 
of  influence  of  size  of  seed  upon 
crop  yield  may  be  stated  as  fol- 
lows: The  Indiana  Experiment 
Station  found  an  average  gain  in 
three  years  of  two  and  a  half 
bushels   in   favor   of   lame   seed.1 


Indiana. 


THE    SELECTION    OF    SEED-WHEAT. 


161 


c3 

H 


S 
© 


a 


a 
a 

o 

o 


in 


I 


I 


w 


w 


i 


$ 


0) 

Si 


CO 

be 
03 
SH 

> 

o3 


CO 


O 

o 

C4 


,Q 

co 
Si 


o 

OJO 


& 

tt 

co 
be 
o3 
<-. 

> 

o3 

bo 


o3 

a 

o 


H 
Pi 


The  Kansas  Station 
has  found,  from  four 
years  of  experimental 
work,  that  a  higher 
yield  is  obtained  from 
wheat  with  high  weight 
per  bushel.1  The  Ohio 
Station,  in  a  summary 
of  nine  years'  work, 
comes  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  crop  would 
not  vary  with  the  seed 
used.2  The  Ontario 
Agricultural  College, 
in  dealing  with  wheat, 
oats,  and  barley  from 
a  five-  to  eight-year 
experimental  period, 
found  that  the  average 
yield  of  grain  and 
straw  and  the  weight 
per  measured  bushel 
were  in  favor  of  large, 
plump  seed  as  against 
either  medium  size  or 
small  seed.3  The  North 
Dakota  Station,  from 
a  four  years'  test,  con- 
cludes that  perfect 
grains  of  large  size 
and  high  weight  pro- 
duce better  plants  than 
those  of  smaller  size 
and  weight,  even  though 
the  grains  come  from 
the  same  spike.4  In 
Tennessee  the  experi- 
ment showed  that  in 
general  the  yield  was 
in  favor  of  a  larger 
seed,  although  it  was 
not  uniformly  so.5 
Nearly  double  the  yield 


:M 


>» 

CO 

u 

03 
> 

a 

o3 
si 

CO 

Si 


CO 


a 
o 

El 

bo 

a 

•  i-H 

T) 
o3 
u 
bo 

CO 

be 

o3 

S-i 
CO 

> 

oS 
CO 


a, 

a 

c3 
si 

Xi 


S-i 

cu 

CO 


CO 

Si 

CO 

si 


o 
be 


T3 
o3 

t-i 

be 

l» 

be 
o3 

t- 

> 
o3 
CO 

si 


be 

C 

C-i 

03 

O. 

a 

o 
o 


X 

S3 

H 

0H 


1  Indiana. 


Ohio  Bui.  29,  p.  30.  3  Rept.  Ont.  Agr.  Farm,  1901,  pp.  82-111. 


162  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION. 

of  wheat  was  obtained  at  the  University  College  of  Wales  from  large 
seed  as  over  small  seed.1  Desprez,  in  France,  experimenting  with 
several  varieties  for  a  number  of  years,  draws  the  conclusion  that 
the  results  are  in  favor  of  large  seed.-  Deherian  reports  similar 
results.3  Cobb,  of  New  South  Wales,  in  investigations  of  twenty-four 
varieties  of  wheat  separated  into  large,  medium,  and  small  grains, 
concludes  that  the  superior  yield  from  large,  plump  grains  is  sufficient 
to  justify  the  cost  of  first-class  cleaning  machinery.4 

C.  R.  Gies,  an  experimenter,  .reports  that  the  increased  yield 
obtained  by  him  by  using  large,  plump  seed,  rather  than  small,  plump 
seed,  was  such  that  with  average  crops  on  a  farm  of  100  acres  the 
increased  value  of  the  crop  due  to  seed  selection  amounted  to  $217 
per  year.5 


LARGE  AND  PLUMP  VS.   SMALL  AND  SHRIVELED  SEED. 

One  of  the  conditions  indicated  most  to  be  deplored  is  the  great 
tendency  of  growers  to  use  small,  pinched  seed.  The  question  is  con- 
stantly being  brought  to  the  Station  authorities  as  to  the  value  of 
pinched  grain  for  seed  purposes. 

It  is  not  easy  to  give  an  accurate  definition  as  to  what  is  meant  by 
shriveled  seed,  but  the  illustration  on  page  163  will  serve  to  show  the 
contrast  between  plump  and  shriveled  seed  as  here  discussed.  Doubt- 
less the  entire  discussion  is  due  to  the  fact  that  extremely  inferior- 
looking  seed  will  actually  germinate  and  to  a  certain  extent  grow  and 
bear  a  crorj,  and  under  favorable  conditions  may  even  produce  a  good 
yield.  This  fact  has  unfortunately  given  rise  to  much  carelessness  in 
the  selection  of  seed-wheat,  which  must  be  overcome  if  we  are  to 
secure  the  highest  results  in  grain  culture. 

That  this  tendency  to  use  such  light-weight  grain  is  great  can  not 
be  so  clearly  shown  as  can  the  relative  size  of  the  grain ;  but  in  general 
this  is  indicated  by  the  relative  weights  per  bushel  as  shown  in  the 
tables,  and  in  all  cases  where  the  grain  falls  considerably  below  60 
pounds  per  bushel  it  may  be  said  that  it  was  pinched.  An  examination 
of  the  tables  reveals  the  fact  that  of  the  samples  of  Salt  Lake  Club  wheat 
there  were  but  thirteen  out  of  thirty-nine  that  could  be  considered  of 
normal  weight;  and  of  the  Australian  samples  only  seven  out  of 
twenty-six;  of  the  Bluestem  the  approach  to  normal  condition  was 
much  better,  since  most  of  these  samples  had  been  especially  secured 
as  seed,  from  out  of  the  State,  although  one  fifth  of  these  samples 

i  Rept.  University  College  of  Wales,  1899,  pp.  68-70. 

2  Jour.  Agr.  Pract.  2  (1897),  No.  37,  pp.  416-420. 

3  E.  S.  R.  XII,  233. 

4  Seed  Wheat,  pp.  1-60 :  Sidney,  1903. 
s  Farming  World,  XVIII,  No.  3. 


THE    SELECTION    OF    SEED-WHEAT. 


163 


were  really  lighter  than  desirable.     In  numerous  cases  the  samples 
fell  below  50  pounds  per  bushel  in  weight. 

The  remark  made  as  to  the  desirability  of  selecting-  large,  well- 
formed  grains  for  seed  purposes  has  even  greater  force  here,  for  in 
the  case  of  pinched  wheat  we  have  a  defective  seed,  in  that  it  is  the 
product  of  a  plant  debilitated  from  some  cause.  We  must  not,  how- 
ever, look  upon  these  grains  as  likely  to  produce  shriveled  grains  as 
a  product,  unless  the  conditions  for  such  production  favor  it,  and 
then  only  from  the  fact 
that  the  parent  of  the 
pinched  grain  has  evi- 
dently been  easily  af- 
fected by  similar  con- 
ditions, thus  indicating 
its  susceptibility  to  such 
result.  The  main  reason 
for  the  tendency  of 
large,  plump  grains  to 
produce  superior  plants 
and  a  higher  yield  is 
due  rather  to  the  greater 
reserve  food  supply 
which  the  young  plant 
can  draw  upon,  than  to  ; 
a  matter  of  heredity, 
unless  a  constitutional 
weakness  of  the  plant 
has  been  introduced  by 
the  continued  selection 
of  pinched  wheat  from 
successive  crops.  The 
young  plant  from  the 
plump  seed  has  a  more 
vigorous  start  and  is  enabled  to  withstand  any  unfavorable  conditions 
of  soil  or  climate  better  than  the  weaker  plantlet  from  pinched  seed. 

The  main  reason  for  the  difference  is  physiological,  and  lies  in  the 
larger  reserve  food  supply  in  the  larger  seed.  It  has  been  shown  that 
heavier  seeds  possess  more  of  the  important  plant  foods  (phosphoric 
acid,  nitrogen,  and  potash)  .1  These  materials  are  the  first  nourishment 
which  the  plantlet  gets;  there  is  abundant  material  immediately  avail- 
able to  the  plantlet,  and  the  young  plant  is  soon  in  a  position  to  take 
a  vigorous  hold  upon  the  soil. 


PLATE  XI. 

Fig.  1.    A  type  of  seed  much  shrunken  ;  natural  size. 

Too  frequently  selected  for  seed. 
Fig.  2.    A  good  type  of  seed-wheat. 


1  Minnesota  Bulletin  No.  29. 


164 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA  —  EXPERIMENT    STATION. 


One  of  the  most  painstaking  investigations  along  this  line  has  been 
concluded  by  Dr.  N.  A.  Cobb,  of  New  South  Wales,  and  in  this  con- 
nection will  prove  suggestive.     These  experiments  covered  five  varie- 


>_      £ 


M  W  »  #1  f\J 


i.-^ 


i£ 


-,  i  ft 


'  <      *<&, 


V      V/     I    - 


PLATE  XII.     Showing  the  difference  in  the  vigor  of  germination  between  plump 

and  pinched   seed- wheat. 

ties,  which  gave  the  following  average  results,  they  being  uniformly 
in  favor  of  the  plump  seed : 

From  plump  seed 20.18  bushels. 

From  shrunken  seed 18.52  bushels. 


That  the  germination  of  such  pinched  seed  is  fair  is  indicated  by  a  test 
made  by  the  writer  of  this  circular,  which  showed  92  per  cent  of  the 


THE    SELECTION    OF    SEED-WHEAT.  165 

grain  actually  germinated,  but  the  plantlets  were  very  weak,   and 
undoubtedly  their  vitality  would  always  remain  low. 

These  results  are  in  entire  harmony  with  what  we  know  as  to  the 
necessity  of  securing  vigorous,  plump  seed  in  the  case  of  alfalfa  and 
other  crops.  The  same  fact  is  recognized  by  the  farmer  with  reference 
to  the  parentage  of  his  animals,  but  unfortunately  the  idea  holds  that 
the  case  is  different  with  wheat. 


WEEDS. 

That  no  farmer  can  afford  to  sow  weeds  upon  his  land  would  seem 
to  be  so  self-evident  a  proposition  as  to  need  no  argument,  yet  the 
condition  of  the  samples  collected  as  to  weediness  clearly  shows  that 
our  farmers  are  not  really  alive  to  this  simple  fact,  for  in  the  column 
marked  "Trash"  much  of  this  consisted  of  weeds,  or  at  least  other 
seeds  than  wheat.  It  is  true  that  in  most  cases  these  foreign  seeds 
were  either  cultivated  barley  or  oats ;  but  inasmuch  as  the  prime 
object  of  the  grower  was  to  secure  a  crop  of  wheat,  even  these  must  be 
looked  upon  as  weeds.  "A  weed  is  a  plant  out  of  place. ':  If  we  look 
at  the  average  of  the  poorest  of  the  samples  secured  it  will  be  noted 
that  more  than  one  fifth  of  it  falls  under  the  head  of  "trash,"  and 
even  that  selected  as  standard  in  the  case  of  Salt  Lake  Club  carried 
as  high  as  2.5  per  cent.  Were  it  only  for  the  cleaning  out  of  the 
weeds,  not  to  mention  the  advantage  of  grading,  it  would  pay  to  use  the 
fanning  mill  and  screens  freely.  While  the  combined  harvester  is  doubt- 
less one  of  the  main  causes  for  the  distribution  of  weed  seed,  yet  what 
shall  we  say  of  the  farmer  who  deliberately  uses  foul  seed  % 


EFFECT    OF    CHANGE    OF    SEED. 

There  is  a  very  widespread  belief  among  grain-growers  that  there 
is  a  necessity  for  frequent  change  of  seed  because  of  actual  deteriora- 
tion due  to  continued  culture  under  the  same  soil  conditions.  This 
idea  is  held  to  such  an  extent  as  to  be  well  nigh  universal.  Yet,  the 
most  carefully  conducted  investigations,  without  a  single  exception, 
go  to  show  that  not  only  is  there  no  benefit  to  be  derived  from  the 
mere  change  of  seed,  but  that  actual  loss  occurs,  except  only  when 
there  is  a  change  to  a  better  type  of  wheat,  or  to  a  more  vigorous 
grain  of  the  same  type.  But  this  is  not  the  main  object  usually  in  the 
mind  of  the  grower.  Farmers  are  continually  changing  seed;  the  one 
having  a  stiff  soil  must  have  seed  from  a  sandy  soil,  and  he  with  a 
sandy  soil  must  buy  seed  from  a  heavy  soil.  Then  again,  seed  is 
frequently  brought  long  distances  and  often  from  regions  of  very 


166  UNIVERSITY    OP    CALIFORNIA  — EXPERIMENT    STATION. 

different  climatic  conditions,  with  the  hope  that  some  immediate 
increase  will  be  obtained  in  the  yield. 

Such  indiscriminate  change  of  seed  is  a  most  potent  factor  against 
proper  seed  improvement,  and  there  will  be  little  hope  of  improve- 
ment if  one  must  give  np  a  desirable  strain  every  few  years  for  one 
grown  on  some  one  else's  land. 

The  North  Dakota  Experiment  Station1  conducted  some  extensive 
experiments  to  thoroughly  test  this  idea,  "embracing  thirty-nine  dif- 
ferent samples  of  wheat  of  known  history  representing  the  varied 
soils  of  the  State.'  These  samples  were  grown  at  the  Station  under 
conditions  which  "make  such  comparative  test  of  great  certainty  as 
to  equality  of  condition.  *  *  *  Wheat  grown  for  a  number  of 
years  on  widely  varying  types  of  soils  were  then  planted  in  direct 
and  similar  soil  association. ':  It  was  found  that  standard  types  of 
wheat  of  the  same  variety  brought  from  different  soils  and  grown 
side  by  side  at  the  Station,  no  matter  how  marked  was  the  difference 
in  the  appearance  of  the  original  seed,  all  gave  approximately  the 
same  results.  "In  those  in  which  slight  variation  did  occur  it  was 
found  that  other  elements  constituted  the  matter  of  cause.  That  is 
to  say,  seed  grain  from  a  special  type  of  soil  has  not  been  found  to 
vary  in  the  product  because  of  the  fact  that  it  came  from  a  peculiar 
soil." 

These  results  were  further  corroborated  by  similar  tests  of  injured 
wheats,  the  only  apparent  difference  in  these  samples  being  that  the 
product  from  weak  seed  was  very  inferior  in  quantity. 

To  further  test  the  idea  of  gain  from  a  change  of  soil,  seed  was 
sent  from  the  Station  to  various  types  of  land  in  other  portions  of 
the  State. 

The  result  of  these  and  other  experiments  indicates  that  varieties 
of  wheat  do  not  degenerate  per  se,  at  least  within  any  reasonable 
length  of  time,  by  being  grown  continually  upon  any  one  soil.  In 
other  words,  that  a  given  type  of  soil  seems  to  produce  certain  well- 
defined  characteristics  in  the  kernel  of  whatever  variety  may  be 
grown  upon  it. 

That  Darwin,  that  great  observer  of  nature's  laws,  did  not  share  in 
the  idea  of  degeneracy  is  indicated  from  his  statement:  "I  never 
have  seen  grain  which  has  either  been  improved  or  degenerated  by 
cultivation  so  as  to  convey  the  change  to  the  succeeding  crop."2  He 
also  cites  Dalbert  as  having  cultivated  160  kinds  for  a  period  of  thirty 
years,  all  of  which  kept  true.3 

Results  obtained  at  the  Ohio  Experiment  Station  further  confirm 

1  Bulletin  No.  17,  North  Dakota  Experiment  Station  :    H.  L.  Bolty. 

2  Animals  and  Plants  under  Domestication.     Vol.  I,  p.  33. 

3  Citation  from  Loisleur  :  Des  Longchamps,  Considerations  sur  les  Cereals,  pp.  45-70. 


THE    SELECTION    OF    SEED- WHEAT.  167 

this  idea.  Velvet  Chaff  and  Silver  Chaff  have  been  grown  continu- 
ously without  change  of  seed  for  twelve  years ;  no  loss  of  quantity  or 
capacity  to  yield  is  noted.1 

2 At  the  Indiana  Station,  Fultz,  Michigan  Amber,  and  Velvet  Chaff 
have  been  grown  eleven  consecutive  years.  The  average  yield  for 
the  first  ten  years  was  27.3,  29.4,  and  29.8  bushels,  respectively.  The 
eleventh  year  (1894)  the  yields  were  39.67,  35.66,  and  27  bushels,  from 
which  Professor  Latta  says  :  "  It  is  high  time  that  the  farmer  everywhere 
should  abandon  the  notion  that  wheat  will  'run  out'." 

3  The  North  Dakota  Station,  in  discussing  the  same  matter,  cites 
results  with  six  varieties  of  wheat  the  exact  history  of  which  was 
known,  as  follows: 

Bushels. 
Average  yield  of  wheat  from  seed  home  grown  continuously  (7  years).   22.67 
Average  yield  of  wheat  from  seed  which  had  taken  a  vacation  for  three 

years:  Minnesota  first  and  second  crop 18.55 

Difference  in  favor  of  the  old  seed 4.12 

Average  yield  of  wheat  from  Minnesota  seed  grown  in  North  Dakota 

one  year  .. _. :.-... 21.88 

Average  yield  of  wheat  from  seed  direct  from  Minnesota  ... 20.64 

Difference  in  favor  of  the  older  seed .. 1.24 

Average  yield  of  wheat  from  Minnesota  seed  grown  in  North  Dakota 

two  years ._ 36.59 

Average  yield  of  wheat  from  Minnesota  seed  grown  in  North  Dakota 

one  year 31.00 

Difference  in  favor  of  the  older  seed...  5.59 

Here  is  shown  a  case  in  which  a  change  of  seed  was  the  only  factor, 
the  selection  of  the  seed  and  its  manner  of  growing  having  been  the 
same. 

4  Prof.  T.  L.  Lyon,  of  the  Nebraska  Experiment  Station,  in  experi- 
ments continued  from  1899  to  1904,  comes  to  the  following  conclusion : 
'That  a  variety  brought  from  a  more  humid  to  a  drier  climate  will 
not  do  as  well  for  a  number  of  years  as  the  same  variety  which  has 
been  grown  in  the  dry  climate  continuously." 

In  the  light  of  these  carefully  conducted  experiments  we  may  safely 
lay  down  the  principle  that  unless  the  change  be  for  the  purpose  of 
obtaining  a  better  variety  or  a  stronger  seed  there  can  be  no  advan- 
tage resulting  from  a  change  of  seed-wheat,  and  in  case  seed  be 
purchased  from  a  portion  of  the  country  where  climatic  conditions 
are  quite  unlike  those  of  California  the  seed  is  not  likely  to  be  at  its 
best  for  several  years. 


i  Bulletin  No.  42,  p.  88,  Ohio  Experiment  Station. 
2  Bulletin  No.  51,  Indiana  Experiment  Station, 
s  Bulletin,  North  Dakota  Experiment  Station,  p.  422. 
4  Bulletin  No.  89,  Nebraska  Experiment  Station. 


168  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA  —  EXPERIMENT    STATION. 

If  seed  shows  signs  of  running-out  it  simply  means  that  proper  care 
has  not  been  taken  in  the  selection  of  the  seed  to  remove  small,  shriv- 
eled, and  light-weight  kernels,  and  to  use  only  plump  kernels.  With 
proper  care  in  the  selection  of  seed,  wheat  does  not  deteriorate  from 
any  change  within  itself.  But  to  maintain  the  standard  of  yield  care 
must  he  taken  in  the  selection  of  the  best  seed  and  to  practice  rational 
methods  of  rotation,  manuring,  and  tillage  to  maintain  the  fertility 
of  the  soil. 

The  farmer  can  do  much  toward  the  improvement  of  his  own  seed 
by  attempting  to  bring  it  to  a  high  standard  of  perfection  and  purity 
of  variety  by  proper  methods  of  selection  and  culture,  which  is  far 
preferable  to  the  constant  and  indiscriminate  change  of  seed  practiced 
by  so  many.  It  has  long  been  the  practice  of  farmers  to  make  a  sort 
of  selection  of  seed  corn,  and  to  some  extent  of  seed  potatoes,  but 
the  fact  that  seed  grain  is  as  capable  of  improvement  by  such  selec- 
tion seems  to  have  been  well-nigh  overlooked.  The  practice  of  indis- 
criminate seed  exchange  precludes  the  possibility  of  any  permanent 
crop  improvement  by  careful  culture  and  seed  selection.  While  the 
farmer  can  not  follow  out  the  details  of  plant  breeding,  yet  it  is 
entirely  feasible  for  him  to  practice  with  his  own  crops  straight  selec- 
tion of  seed.  Mr.  M.  A.  Carleton  has  so  aptly  described  such  a 
practice  that  we  quote  here  the  suggestion : 

'Begin  practicing  the  constant  use  of  a  wheat-breeding  plat  of 
one  acre  or  more  from  which  to  select  seed  each  year.  Locate  this 
plat  at  different  parts  of  the  farm  every  two  or  three  years,  preferably 
in  alternation  with  clover  or  other  leguminous  crops,  and  give  it  the 
best  of  care.  Just  before  harvest  go  through  a  field  of  a  good,  hardy, 
standard  variety  that  has  given  the  best  results  in  the  locality  and 
mark  plants  that  exhibit  to  the  highest  degree  the  special  quality 
which  it  is  desired  to  increase,  such  as  freedom  from  rust,  fertilitv  of 

7  7  * 

head,  or  otherwise,  and  which  are  at  the  same  time  at  least  as  good 
as  the  average  in  other  respects.  At  harvest  time  cut  with  a  sickle 
enough  of  these  marked  plants  for  sowing  the  plat,  and,  after  thresh- 
ing them,  select  the  largest  and  most  vigorous  seed  for  this  purpose 
by  means  of  a  screen  or  even  by  hand  picking.  Sow  the  plat  early, 
drilling  it  at  the  average  rate  of  about  ±14  bushels  per  acre.  Next 
season  use  none  of  the  field  crop  for  this  breeding  plat  for  reseeding 
the  plat,  and  Use  all  the  remainder  for  sowing  the  general  crop.  In 
the  following  season  and  each  succeeding  season  practice  exactly  the 
same  method.  In  this  way  seed  is  never  taken  from  the  general  crop, 
which  can  not  be  given  the  same  care  as  the  small  plat,  and  there  is 
a  constant  selection  of  seed,  which  is  more  and  more  rigid  every  year. 
Moreover,  there  is  no  extra  labor  involved,  except  the  small  amount 
required  for  seed  selection  each  year.     Of  course,  the  breeding  plat 


THE    SELECTION    OP    SEED-WHEAT.  169 

ishould  be  kept  constantly  free  from  rye  or  other  foreign  heads  and 
weeds. " 

DAMAGE   FROM   SMUT. 

The  grain  smuts  in  California  cause  an  annual  loss  in  the  crops 
of  the  State  that  may  be  conservatively  estimated  at  10  per  cent.  Not 
only  does  this  direct  loss  occur,  but  there  is  a  further  loss  through  a 
lowering  of  the  commercial  grades,  which  is  occasioned  by  the  pres- 
ence of  even  a  small  quantity  of  smut  on  the  grain.  Farmers,  doubt- 
less, do  not  realize  the  large  loss  which  occurs  annually  from  this 
trouble.  The  widespread  occurrence  of  this  trouble  is  the  more  to  be 
deplored  since  the  preventive  methods  which  can  be  employed  are  both 
easy  of  application  and  extremely  effective.  While  it  is  not  the  province 
of  this  bulletin  to  deal  in  detail  with  the  grain  smuts,  yet  the  great 
prevalence  of  the  disease  and  the  resulting  heavy  loss  to  farmers  make 
it  pertinent  to  introduce  a  brief  discussion  of  them  here. 

The  smuts  of  grain  are  caused  by  the  growth  of  minute  parasitic 
plants  that  live  within  the  tissues  of  the  grain  plants  and  are  nour- 
ished by  the  juices  of  the  growing  grain. 

These  fungi,  or  smuts,  reproduce  their  kind  by  the  production  of 
spores,  which  are  bodies  corresponding  to  the  seeds  produced  by 
ordinary  plants,  and  are  capable,  under  proper  conditions,  of  germi- 
nating and  growing.  Owing  to  the  fact  that  the  fungous  growth 
giving  rise  to  the  diseased  condition  is  very  closely  connected  with 
the  tissue  of  the  affected  plants,  and  because  the  fungi  themselves 
are  very  tenacious  of  life,  any  treatment  with  power  enough  to  destroy 
it  will  at  the  same  time  injure  the  growing  plant.  Hence  the  remedy 
must  be  one  of  prevention,  rather  than  of  cure.  While  there  are 
certain  minor  ways  in  which  the  disease  may  infect  a  field,  yet  the 
major  amount  of  the  disease  in  every  case  enters  by  way  of  the  seed; 
therefore,  the  greatest  care  should  be  taken  to  so  select,  care  for,  and 
treat  the  seed  as  to  prevent  sowing  living  smut  spores  with  the  seed 
grain. 

There  are  two  quite  distinct  classes  of  the  so-called  smuts,  one 
known  as  loose,  or  black  smut,  and  the  other  stinking  smut,  or  bunt 
of  wheat,  both  of  which  affect  grain  crops.  The  former  is  character- 
ized by  an  accumulation  of  loose,  black,  smutty  matter  upon  the 
infected  plant,  consisting  of  the  spores  produced  from  the  parasite 
whose  filaments  penetrate  the  growing  grain. 

The  stinking  smut,  or  bunt  of  wheat,  is  wholly  confined  to  the  wheat 
plant,  and  is  the  cause  of  much  greater  loss  than  the  loose  smut.  On 
account  of  the  fact  that  the  spores  may  remain  entirely  inclosed  in 
the  wheat  grain,  and  of  the  very  disagreeable  odor,  it  not  only  is 


170  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA  — EXPERIMENT    STATION. 

capable  of  seriously  reducing-  the  yield,  but  also  damages  the  quality 
of  the  associated  sound  grain  when  milled,  by  imparting  a  disagreeable 
odor  to  the  flour. 

While  in  the  case  of  loose  smut  the  black  accumulation  of  smut 
spores  are  always  evident,  in  the  case  of  bunt  spores  they  form  and 
often  remain  within  the  wheat  kernel,  and  the  latter  remains  in  its 
normal  position  in  the  head,  so  that  it  is  only  by  close  observation 
that  one  will  detect  it  in  the  growing  grains.  When  the  grains  are 
removed  from  the  head,  however,  they  present  an  enlarged  appear- 
ance, and  are  somewhat  shorter  than  healthy  grains,  and  when 
crushed  they  are  found  filled  with  the  black  smutty  mass  of  spores, 
which  emit  a  fetid  odor. 

Since  the  major  source  of  infection  is  through  the  medium  of  the 
seed,  it  is  necessary  that  all  seed  sown  be  treated  by  such  a  process 
as  will  kill  the  smut  spores  adhering  to  the  grain  without  injury  to 
the  latter.  There  are  three  methods  which  can  be  recommended  as 
well  nigh  positive  in  result,  when  the  seed  has  been  properly  treated. 
These  methods  are  set  forth  below  in  the  order  in  which  they  are 
recommended. 

Formaldehyd  Method. — Use  one  pound  of  formaldehyd  (40  per 
cent  strength,  known  as  formalin)  to  50  gallons  of  water.  The  solu- 
tion may  be  placed  in  barrels  or  tanks  until  used.  The  wheat  may  be 
dipped  into  the  solution  in  loosely  woven  bags  or  wire  baskets,  allowed 
to  remain  for  ten  minutes,  and  then  drained  to  save  all  the  liquid 
possible,  and  dried,  when  it  is  ready  to  sow. 

If  it  is  preferred,  the  seed  may  be  spread  on  a  clean  canvas  or  board 
floor  and  the  formaldehyd  solution  applied  with  a  sprinkler,  or  hose 
and  nozzle,  constantly  stirring  and  mixing  the  grain  with  a  rake  or 
shovel  until  all  the  kernels  are  thoroughly  wetted,  when  it  is  allowed 
to  dry. 

Be  sure  to  get  40  per  cent  formalin.  Dealers  sometimes  give  a  25 
or  30  per  cent  formalin  for  a  40  per  cent. 

The  formalin  should  be  weighed  in  order  to  make  sure  that  a  full 
pound  to  each  50  gallons  of  water  be  used.  The  cans  in  which  the 
formalin  comes  often  contain  only  three  fourths  of  a  pound,  hence 
the  necessity  of  this  precaution. 

This  treatment  has  an  advantage  over  some  others,  in  that  it  is  not 
poisonous  to  persons  handling  the  material. 

Bluestone,  or  Copper  Sulfate,  Method. — This  is  the  method  practiced 
almost  exclusively  in  California.  Its  lack  of  effectiveness  in  many 
cases  may  generally  be  traced  to  a  lack  of  thoroughness  in  the  work. 
The  details  of  the  treatment  are  the  same  as  in  the  formalin  method. 


THE    SELECTION    OF    SEED- WHEAT.  171 

A  solution  is  made  by  dissolving  1  pound  of  blue  vitriol  in  4 
gallons  of  cold  water,  and  dipping  the  wheat  in  the  solution,  as  above, 
until  the  grain  has  become  thoroughly  wetted,  after  which  it  is  imme- 
diately dried.  Or  the  wheat  may  be  piled  upon  a  floor  or  canvas,  and 
thoroughly  sprinkled  or  sprayed  with  the  solution  while  the  grain  is 
being  constantly  shoveled  over  so  that  every  grain  becomes  wet  over 
the  entire  surface.  Care  should  be  taken  tbat  the  solution  is  of 
uniform  density  by  thoroughly  agitating  just  previous  to  use. 

Hot  Water  Method. — When  the  proper  care  is  taken  this  method 
has  proven  very  effective. 

The  following  utensils  are  required :  1st,  a  boiler  or  large  kettle 
in  which  to  boil  water;  2d,  a  vessel  for  cold  water;  3d,  a  vessel  for 
water  at  120°-132°  F. ;  4th,  a  vessel,  barrel,  or  tank  containing  water 
kept  constantly  between  132°  and  135°  F. ;  5th,  a  drying  place  where 
the  grain  is  dried  so  it  will  pass  through  the  drill  or  seeder ;  and  6th, 
an  accurate  thermometer  to  keep  the  temperature  of  the  water  within 
the  above  limits. 

The  vessels  having  been  arranged  and  filled  with  water  at  the 
proper  temperature,  some  convenient  bulk  of  well-cleaned  seed-wheat 
is  taken  in  a  loosely- woven  bag  and  immersed  in  the  first  vessel  con- 
taining water  at  120° -132°  F.,  keeping  the  wheat  in  constant  agitation 
by  moving  the  bag  in  the  water,  or  by  stirring  the  wheat.  In  about 
five  minutes,  when  the  seed  will  be  well  warmed  and  thoroughly  wet. 
it  is  raised  out  and  most  of  the  water  allowed  to  drain  out,  then 
immersed  in  the  second  vessel  containing  water  at  132°-135°  F., 
moving  or  stirring  as  before,  and  keeping  close  watch  that  the  tem- 
perature does  not  fall  below  132°.  After  twelve  minutes  it  may  be 
taken  out  and  spread  out  to  dry  at  some  place  where  it  will  not  be 
contaminated  with  fresh  spores.  When  it  is  dry  it  may  be  sown. 
Some  advise  dipping  in  cold  water  at  last,  but  that  retards  the  drying, 
and  should  be  omitted. 

It  is  very  necessary  that  the  following  precautions  be  taken : 

1.  Keep  the  water  in  the  first  vessel  well  up  to  132°  in  temperature, 
as  the  cold  wheat  will  lower  it  rapidly. 

2.  Keep  the  temperature  within  the  limits  stated  for  the  second 
vessel  (which  should  be  a  large  one),  or  the  method  will  not  give 
the  desired  results. 

3.  Be  sure  the  thermometer  registers  correctly. 

4.  The  seed-wheat  will  swell  somewhat,  and  one  third  to  one  half 
more  bulk  of  seed  must  be  sown  to  remedy  this  result. 


172  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA— EXPERIMENT    STATION. 


SUMMARY. 

1.  There  is  much  room  for  improvement  in  yield  of  wheat  per  acre 
in  California. 

2.  One  of  the  most  important  factors  contributing  to  high  yield  is 
the  use  of  only  first-class  seed. 

3.  Empirical  grading  (according  to  size  of  grains)  of  a  large  number 
of  samples  of  seed-wheat  collected  from  farmers  in  this  State  shows 
that  the  quality  of  seed  being  used  by  most  farmers  is  far  below  what 
might  reasonably  be  expected  in  relation  to  so  important  a  factor  in 
crop  production  (a)  as  to  purity  of  seed,  (&)  as  to  perfection  of 
development,  (c)  as  to  weight  per  bushel,  (d)  as  to  freedom  from 
weeds,  (e)   as  to  freedom  from  bunt  (or  stinking  smut). 

4.  The  experience  of  practically  all  investigators  is  that  the  highest 
yield  and  quality  can  only  be  obtained  from  the  use  of  large,  plump 
seed  of  high  weight  per  bushel. 

5.  The  superiority  of  large,  plump  seed  lies  in  the  greater  reserve 
food  supply  for  the  plantlet,  thus  giving  it  a  more  vigorous  start  and 
early  growth.  This  applies  with  even  greater  force  in  the  case  of 
plump  vs.  pinched  seed. 

6.  No  permanent  benefit  can  come  from  the  frequent  exchange  of 
seed,  except  such  change  be  to  secure  a  better  type  of  wheat,  or  a 
more  vigorous  grain  of  the  same  type. 

7.  In  California  there  is  sown  much  seed-wheat  that  is  contaminated 
with  smut,  which  probably  reduces  the  general  yield  at  least  one 
tenth.  This  should  be  prevented  by  the  invariable  use  of  either  for- 
maldehyd  or  bluestone. 

8.  Farmers  can  unquestionably  increase  their  yield  per  acre  by 
proper  attention  to  seed  selection.  The  most  important  points  to  be 
considered  in  seed  selection  are  (a)  seed  from  plants  known  to  have 
given  a  heavy  yield,  (5)  a  plump  grain,  (c)  a  heavy  grain,  (d)  a 
clean  wheat,  (e)  a  pure  variety. 


STATION  PUBLICATIONS  AVAILABLE  FOR  DISTRIBUTION. 


REPORTS. 


1896. 

1897. 

1898. 

1900. 
1902. 
1903. 
1904. 


Reprint. 
No.  128. 

131. 
133. 
138. 
139. 
140. 
141. 
142. 
143. 
144. 
145. 
146. 
147. 
148. 
149. 
150. 
151. 
152. 
153. 
154. 
155. 
156. 
158. 
159. 
160. 
161. 
162. 
163. 
164. 
165. 
166. 
167. 
168. 
169. 
170. 
171. 
172. 
173. 
174. 
175. 
176. 
177. 
178. 
179. 
ISO. 


Report   of    the    Viticultural    Work    during    the    seasons    1887-93,    with    data 

regarding  the  Vintages  of  1894-95. 
Resistant    Vines,    their    Selection,   Adaptation,    and    Grafting.      Appendix    to 

Viticultural  Report  for  1896. 
Partial   Report  of  Work  of  Agricultural  Experiment  Station   for  the  years 

1895-96  and  1896-97. 
Rpport  of  the  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  for  the  year  1897-98. 
Report  of  the  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  for   1898-1901. 
Report  of  the  Agricultural  Experiment  Station   for  1901-1903. 
Twenty-second  Report  of  the  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  for  1903-1904. 

BULLETINS. 

Endurance  of  Drought  in  Soils  of  the  Arid  Region. 

Nature,  Value  and  Utilization  of  Alkali  Lands,  and  Tolerance  of  Alkali. 

(Revised  and  Reprint,  1905.) 
The  Phylloxera  of  the  Vine. 
Tolerance  of  Alkali  by  Various  Cultures. 
Citrus  Fruit  Culture. 
Orange  and  Lemon  Rot. 

Lands  of  the  Colorado  Delta  in  Salton  Basin,  and  Supplement. 
Deciduous  Fruits  at  Paso  Robles. 
Grasshoppers  in  California. 
California  Peach-Tree  Borer. 
The  Peach-WTorm. 
The  Red  Spider  of  Citrus  Trees. 
New  Methods  of  Grafting  and  Budding  Vines. 
Culture  Work  of  the  Substations. 
Resistant  Vines  and  their  Hybrids. 
California  Sugar  Industry. 
The  Value  of  Oak  Leaves  for  Forage. 
Arsenical  Insecticides. 
Fumigation  Dosage. 
Spraying  with  Distillates. 
Sulfur  Sprays  for  Red  Spider. 
Directions  for  Spraying  for  the  Codling-Moth. 
Fowl  Cholera. 

California  Olive  Oil;   its   Manufacture. 
Contribution  to  the  Study  of  Fermentation. 
The  Hop  Aphis. 

Tuberculosis   in   Fowls.      (Reprint.) 
Commercial   Fertilizers.      (Dec.   1,   1904.) 
Pear  Scab. 

Poultry  Feeding  and  Proprietary  Foods.     (Reprint.) 
Asparagus  and  Asparagus  Rust  in  California. 
Spraying  for  Scale  Insects. 
Manufacture  of  Dry  Wines  in  Hot  Countries. 
Observations  on  Some  Vine  Diseases  in  Sonoma  County. 
Tolerance  of  the  Sugar  Beet  for  Alkali. 
Studies  in  Grasshopper  Control. 
Commercial  Fertilizers.      (June  30,  1905.) 
Further  Experience  in  Asparagus  Rust  Control. 
Commercial  Fertilizers.      (December,  1905.) 
A  New  Wine-Cooling  Machine, 
Tomato  Diseases   in   California. 
Sugar  Beets  in  the  San  Joaquin  Valley. 
A  New  Method  of  Making  Dry  Red  Wine. 
Mosquito  Control. 

Commercial  Fertilizers.     (June,  1906.) 
Resistant  Vineyards. 


CIRCULARS. 


No.  1.     Texas  Fever. 

2.  Blackleg. 

3.  Hog  Cholera. 

4.  Anthrax. 

5.  Contagious  Abortion  in  Cows. 
7.     Remedies  for  Insects. 
9.     Asparagus  Rust. 

10.  Reading  Course  in  Economic 

Entomology.     (Revision.) 

11.  Fumigation    Practice. 

12.  Silk   Culture. 

13.  The   Culture  of  the   Sugar  Beet. 
15.     Recent  Problems  in   Agriculture. 

What  a  University  Farm  is  For. 
Copies  may  he  had  on  application  to  Director  of  Experiment  Station.  Berkeley,  Cal. 


No.  16.     Notes  on   Seed- Wheat. 

17.  Why     Agriculture     Should     be 

Taught  in  the  Public  Schools. 

18.  Caterpillars  on  Oaks. 

19.  Disinfection    of    Stables. 

20.  Reading    Course    in    Irrigation. 

21.  The      Advancement      of      Agri- 

cultural  Education. 

22.  Defecation   of   Must   for   White 

Wine. 

23.  Pure  Yeast  in  Wineries. 


